the guy's on fire

Scalia: If States Can Resrict Those Freed Slaves, Then Why Not Messicans?

The Supreme Court conducted a vile smear against the noble state of Arizona today by shooting down most of SB 1070, the law that restricts illegal Mexicans from existing. Our old pal Antonin Scalia, writing the dissenting opinion, simply didn’t care for his peers’ decision. As Scalia sees it, states = sovereign, so states can do whatever they want, however they want it, to keep the filthy Mexicans outside looking in. Where is the problem? Southern states did this all the time with freed slaves, so why can’t they do it with the taco people?

This will go down as one of the great highlights of Scalia 2.0, now featuring more anti-black people precedent:

Notwithstanding “[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigra tion of certain classes of aliens, including convicted crimi­nals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. Neuman, The Lost Century of American Immigration (1776–1875), 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1833, 1835, 1841–1880 (1993). State laws not only pro­vided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.^2 Id., at 1883.

You know what, we can totally believe that that happened. Way to cite it in your 2012 opinion, friend.

Jim Newell is Wonkette's beloved Capitol Hill Typing Demon. He joined Wonkette.com in 2007, left for some other dumb job in 2010, and proudly returned in 2012 as our "Senior Editor at Large." He lives in Washington and also writes for things such as The Guardian, the Manchester paper of liberals.

I scanned that first sentence and came away with "Supreme Court … shooting … illegal Mexicans."

Lionel[redacted]Esq

States used to have a proud tradition of lynching black people, and I don't see a single clause that prohibits that in the Constitution, or would prevent a state from lynching a Mexican if they see fit.

–Antonin Scalia

[And that, Wonketters, if my 6,666 post of the Intense Debate era here at Wonkette, and I also just got p'd on for the 125th time. All in all a good day!]

emmelemm

Balloons!

Green balloons! {dropping from the ceiling}

Confetti cannons!!!

Lionel[redacted]Esq

Shucks, thanks.

BaldarTFlagass

it's nice when the occasional syzygy plays out in your favor.

Lionel[redacted]Esq

I'm just sort of glad I noticed it when I was looking over my profile. And now I finally feel like I belong here.

sullivanst

I'm guessing the proportion of the subset of the population which has "syzygy" in their productive vocabulary who are also Scrabble players (or I guess these days "Words with Friends", as if there's a difference) is quite high.

Scalia? Isn't that what you get if you allow a boil on your bum to get badly infected? Sorta like what Limpblow used to dodge the draft?

sullivanst

Way to make a point by citing precedent that reveals everything that was rotten about the unamended constitution and has since been totally amended away, Tony, you douchebag motherfucker lying twotface.

Chick-Fil-Atheist™

…but he's a literalist. Strict interpretist. And hey, did they ever really amend that whole 3/5 thing, or is it in there with a contract rider or something?

sullivanst

3/5ths wasn't exactly removed, per se, but the "all other persons" category to which it applied was eliminated when Abe Lincoln shifted most of them into the "free Persons, excluding indians not taxed" category and the 13th Amendment completed the process and prohibited them from being moved back.

My favorite part of his dissent is where he cites Article 1, Section 9 and claims it was an acknowledgement of government's power to regulate immigration when it was really the "kick the can down the road" compromise on slavery that the Founders had to agree to in order to get all the states to sign the Constitution. What a jackass.

Toomush_Infer

Scalia!!! I just met a wop named Scalia….and suddenly it seemed, they shouldn't have let them in….

prommie

Look what they fucking did to the finance industry and wall street, once they got their greasy noses through the door.

Beowoof

Also, could have kept Alito out.

bibliotequetress

I think it's awfully quaint of Scalia to look to the era of raging typhoid and untreatable syphillis, Barbary pirates, casual anti-semitism, and slavery from which the darker peoples of the Americas need escape when he offers his dissent. Perhaps we could ask him to wear a powdered wig and a family of fleas when he sits on the court.

DaveJ

Yes, the majestic America of 1883, featuring casual racism against virtually everyone, and *overt* racism against guys with names like "Antonin Scalia," for example.

Mittens Howell, III

He went on to add …'but you can't say Vagina.'

flamingpdog

'and we must pay for Viagra.'

viennawoods13

You mean Viagra isn't a constitutional right?

BaldarTFlagass

“[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration” in the first 100 years of the Republic,

Kinda like the myth of "all men are created equal," is that what you are driving at?

coolhandnuke

The consistent voting record of Scalia's adherence to state's rights, proves inconsistent at best. Case in point: Oregon's assisted suicide law in which Scalia was the main voice of dissent in arguing that that Oregon and its' voters had no rights in this issue.

I agree with Scalia that we should go back to the good ol' days and live in the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when there were no dumb fucking wops serving as Supreme Court justices.

Flat_Earther

Scalia's rant makes Roberts look weak. He has his own three-member court going on the side.

Negropolis

I've always dreamed that because of this, Roberts would gradually drift away from he other conservatives of the court in a fairly consistent and meaningful way. But, again, that's just a dream. Kennedy makes me madder than a pit of snakes. Is it wrong for me to want another Obama court appointment?

sullivanst

No it's not wrong – I fervently wish that one day Scalia has a cilice-induced fever dream wherein his delusion of God tells him something that the God he should've been reading about in the New Testament might say, and in that epiphany he realizes the dreadful harm he's done and continues to do and does the honorable thing and retires immediately to go join a Benedictine monastery.

Look, mommy, no violence! ;)

Flat_Earther

Having a Justice write a political rant in in an opinion makes Roberts look like he is not in control. It should embarrass Roberts. Maybe this will push him more toward the center. We’ll see…

Guppy

States enacted numerous laws

And then Congress "occupied the field." What does this guy do for a living again?

Oh yeah. I need a drink.

Callyson

Pace yourself on the drinks–remember, Obamacare will be murdered on Thursday…

sullivanst

He says that doesn't count because states are sovereign, independent nations derp.

SayItWithWookies

Yeah, I recall states being able to lock up people with TB and weren't whole groups of Japanese folks rounded up and imprisoned one time? Of course, that was a federal thing that that commie FDR did, so it was probably illegal. Nevertheless, since we've done awful things in the past, we should be allowed to do awful things now, is that the basic argument? I wish I'd been astute enough to use that one on my parents when I was a kid — why, I'd probably be buried in a shallow grave by now.

anniegetyerfun

The idea that there's no real difference between unrestricted immigration and "show me your papers, Jose," is, I believe, fallacious.

Callyson

the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens

Then can we please enact a law restricting the Fucked – Up Five? (Four of the justices can stay…)

Lionel[redacted]Esq

I'm waiting for Scalia's opinion on health care, where he rules out funding for anything other than blood letting and burning witches at the stakes, because that is all the Founders would approve of.

Now come on now, there's nothing in Scalia's opinion that can be construed as racist, next you'll have a problem with his saying of the Chinese Exclusion Act, "I accept that as a valid exercise of federal power", and citing the Supreme Court cases which upheld it with approval.

AddHomonym

We must honor our long, rich history of bigotry.

BaldarTFlagass

OT, but I see over there on the right that over 10,000 people like Wonkette on Facebook. I'm sure glad those Facebook losers all don't try to post here at once.

Hey, some of those Facebook losers are my friends! And one of the ten who show up pictured on my monitor screen does post here. I suspect most of those Facebook losers have jerbs and families, unlike us Winners at Wonkette.

BaldarTFlagass

C'mon man, you know I wasn't talking about them.

flamingpdog

I wasn't talking about us, anyway.

timbo71351

Retire, you cranky old fuck. And take Thomas with you too.

Rotundo_

Simply because they are intellectually dishonest and horribly incompetent in their roles as judges, they will live longer than any of us would expect. Pricks seem to live forever.

Biel_ze_Bubba

Their intellectual dishonesty is why they were appointed. It's a feature, not a bug.

For proof, note the 5-4 party-line decision that it's OK for billionaires to buy elections for Republicans, even in Montana. I have no doubt whatsover these fuckers would have voted the other way, if it was Democrats getting the billions.

Too bad Scalia's family didn't join the mob, seems to be a better fit for the kind of guy he is.

clblabin

Meh, he actually gets to whack a lot more people this way. Sick poor people and Mexicans, even; Tony Soprano was a pussy.

sullivanst

Yes indeed:

“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

Biel_ze_Bubba

What makes you think he didn't? Have you checked out Sheldon Adelson, the guy Scalia just greenlighted for the purchase of elections?

Mandala P A

i thought i read that we had the right to life…….does that not preclude lynching? or was that in a movie i saw on tv….?

Oh you are so right.The way his head rests on his shoulders, I can hear him saying
"hmm body of Christ" .

Negropolis

I don't think it's Catholicism. And to be honest, I think it will be catholicism that will get this particular court to overturn the death penalty, and what got read of juvenile lifers. It's weird, but I think this court is conservative in ways we aren't quite used to because it's all Catholics and Jews, now.

sullivanst

Scalia's the biggest lover of the death penalty on the court, though, what with his fetish for still executing people who have subsequently proven their innocence.

In case this hasn't already been mentioned, anyone find it ironic that "wop" stands for WithOut Papers?

Negropolis

States can do whatever they want , except things like, you know, restricting the "speech" rights of corporations in Montana elections, right?

Fuck you, Fat Tony.

Naked_Bunny

Or passing gun control laws.

Naked_Bunny

When the case is about whether a state's immigration law is Constitutional, how is citing a bunch of other state's old immigration laws even relevant? Does just passing laws a lot make them Constitutional after awhile by default?

sullivanst

Not if they're campaign finance laws, obviously.

Rayn_And

Can't argue with Scalia's logic, so Clarence is asking for an eraser so he can change his answer.

ttommyunger

I understand Governor Crypt-Keeper broke her hip doing a victory jig over this decision.